'Rapists' anonymity

[lostjanni]

Have been reading the post about the Irish rugby players and it got me thinking, do people accused of rape deserve anonymity until they're found guilty?

In my opinion yes, it was on the news a while ago that a man was accused and put through 15 months of he'll, lost his jobs, friends and family. And it turned out the girl had made it all up and had texts to prove she was lying. That guy suffered immenseley. And many do when wrongly accused. So I was thinking AIBU to think people accused of rape or sexual assault crimes should be kept anonymous until proven guilty?

I'm sure they're doing cracking jobs all over the country. Who will you call tonight if you have an intruder? Who will you call if your husband/child/elderly confused relative goes missing? Who will you call if you hear screaming and gun shots nextdoor? It is easy when you are sitting safely at your computer but when the nasty real world intrudes it is rather different. The police sometimes get it wrong, how amazing when everyone else, including you of course, always get it right.

not understanding that not proven guilty just means a lack of proof Do you think that is always true? Everyone who is acquitted is actually guilty but just not enough evidence? Does it go for all crimes or just rape?

Well said peach. To the above poster I wasn't blaming cuts on poor rape convictions I was speaking about another poster saying the police are useless and have massively failed everyone.

Who will you call tonight if you have an intruder?

Certainly not the police. Their call out times are insane, I'd be dead/injured by the time they arrived.

It is easy when you are sitting safely at your computer but when the nasty real world intrudes it is rather different.

Yes, had the nasty world in many times.

The police sometimes get it wrong, how amazing when everyone else, including you of course, always get it right.

Did I say that?

I am talking about rape, and attitudes towards women and girls. And the Police have a lot to answer for.

Also, so do social services.

The police have had a poor track record with regards to rape investigations for decades.

Exactly.

Certainly not the police. Their call out times are insane, I'd be dead/injured by the time they arrived. Yes I've heard that before, funnily enough when it happened they changed their mind.

Their fears need to be assured by punishing when it's appropriate. Then some trust might build

I don't understand

They do punish false accusers when appropriate

I did call the police for my ex abusive partner. They arrived too late. I had to get away myself.

If you are in immediate danger, you're on your own.

Anyway. I'm trying to say that the police have a lot to do when it comes to rape and sexual assault, and DV. That's all.

Not 'all police are shit'.

Having followed this trial I think the main issue was the media reporting everything from court every day. The detail did not need to be in the public domain. It was up to the jury to convict or otherwise and not the public. So to answer your question I don't think anonymity would be such an issue if the media were kept out of court.

@LadyBird11 agreed far too public in my opinion

Yes I think it should having had someone close falsely accused and also know of another person accused wrongly. I think having seen it from the other side I have changed opinion. Also having read policies I was shocked about some of it such as believe no matter how ridiculous.

'They do punish false accusers when appropriate'.

That depends on your definition of appropriate. They do, maybe, sometimes, when the accuser has admitted lying. When the accusation is so outlandish or perverse that the world and his wife, the judge and the prosecutor are sure the accuser is lying, and the evidence contradicts itself, but the accuser doesn't admit it, they don't, and the accusation stays on the record indefinitely. It stays on the record when the accusation is so frivolous that it isn't actually a crime, but the prosecutor decided to go to trial 'as a matter of policy'. Do you see any of the complainants in any of the cases that have fallen apart recently, and where the accuser has clearly been lying, (you know, 'thanks for the great sex, honey' in one breath and 'he raped me' in the next, or texts to friends saying 'he didn't rape me, you know,) being prosecuted? Jemma Beale had to accuse men in double figures before anything was done to stop her.

People who insist on saying that if you're falsely accused 'truth will out and all will be well' every time are as deluded as Alison Saunders who insists that she doesn't think that anyone wrongly convicted is in jail. Not long ago a policeman was falsely accused, I forget which force at the moment, but he was investigated for a whole 5 weeks before the case was closed and he needed 6 MONTHS off work because of the stress it caused him. How much stress does it cause falsely accused men who are investigated, or at least told they are being investigated, for 2-3 years?

People who say that 'it's no big deal' if you're accused falsely or that being falsely accused is so rare that throwing those so accused to the wolves is a small price to pay for those who need encouragement to make complaints, have no idea and need to do some research, not throw unsubstantiated statistics around like confetti.

Good points megs. Some forces have a policy of not prosecuting false accusers.

ome forces have a policy of not prosecuting false accusers.

Which ones

They do,

So yes, you are just not happy with how many times they do prosecute...that Would be the damned evidence that they couldnt use to prove rape and also cant use to prove false accusation

Damn you evidence!!

Awfully long post for yes

Oh and i do know someone falsely accused of sexual assault

It was that danned evidence that did for the accuser

All the ones that say that prosecuting false accusers puts genuine victims off reporting assaults. There's as much logic to prosecuting historical accusations with no evidence and letting the jury decide who is telling the truth as there is to prosecuting a false accusation on the same basis. If one, why not the other?

All the ones that say that prosecuting false accusers puts genuine victims off reporting assaults

Who said that false accusers shouldn't be prosecuted?

Im getting confused meg... no change there

Can you tell me are you someone that believes that if the man accused of rape is found not guilty that the woman must be a false accuser

Or as in recent cases the prosecution decides not to go ahead

Or an actual...here is the evidence this women definitely lied

Yes I think they should be granted anonymity - they are innocent until proved guilty. If the person who makes the allegation has anonymity then so should the accused. I think this should be for all cases where the victim has anonymity

Googling to try and find all the police forces which don't prosecute false accusers and i found this

eprints.uwe.ac.uk/25256/1/False%20allegation%20paper%202%20October%202017.pdf

Quite interesting especially when it talks about the different types of 'false accusations '

Oooh should point out i havent found any of those police forces

Im getting a bit bored so if pink could link that would be awesome

Lots of articles on certain forces such as GMP. Also their policies can be read easily online. Their unit has recently changed but they admit this policy as such on documentaries and many articles.

Sorry, I'll try to clarify - some police forces do have a policy of not prosecuting people that they know have made false accusations on the basis that doing so discourages genuine complainants from coming forward. It has been discussed much in the press but I can't tell you which news outlets or forces without doing some checking myself. It takes a lot for the police to prosecute even a serial accuser such as Jemma Beale.

No, I don't assume that every failed prosecution is a false accusation, whether there is a trial and a not guilty verdict, or if the prosecution has decided to drop charges. However, in several recent cases the prosecution decided not to go ahead because evidence of innocence was revealed at the last moment, evidence that should have been revealed and acted upon months before. There is now debate as to whether or not the police hide such evidence deliberately, but that's another discussion.

There is sometimes clear evidence that the complainant has lied for all sorts of reasons that fall short of him/her saying outright 'I lied' but the CPS are very unlikely to prosecute without that level of evidence. (There was even a case recently where the complainant admitted in the witness box that her complaint was untrue, a not guilty verdict was ordered by the judge, but she has not been held to account in any way.) There are plenty of instances where the complainant is genuine but the correct verdict is still a not guilty one, just as the majority of accused are guilty and correctly found so.

In historical cases of sexual crime, there is no requirement of actual evidence other than the complainant's statement and testimony. There are plenty of he said/she said trials, (what else can it be if the event was supposedly 30 or 40 years ago or more?), and my point was that I do not see why, when it is clear to all the legal parties involved that a witness or complainant is lying, even though they haven't admitted it, that there should not be a prosecution for perverting the course of justice and the jury allowed to make up their minds - as they do in historical sexual crime cases. Or be prosecuted for wasting police time if the complaint was frivolous.

Can you think of any other crime where the only time a person is prosecuted is if they have actually admitted committing it? Me neither.

Thank you meg and pink

because evidence of innocence was revealed at the last moment, evidence that should have been revealed

I don't believe this to be the case...i am sure it has happened but not to the extent you seem to be implying

I would honestly like some links...im sure you can appreciate its very difficult for me to search when nothing is coming up

It leads me to believe (and i am happy to agree im wrong on this particular thing) that its just something you read in the paper...not an actual 'fact' as it were

And I honestly cant see where people have said that false accusers shouldn't be prosecuted. If the evidence is there and its appropriate they absolutely should be charged

Oh sorry meg and pink

I absolutely appreciate that its very difficult to remember exactly where information is which might explain why you can't link

Its certainly happened to me in the past